On 05/23/2019 08:38 AM, Y Song wrote: > On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 1:46 PM Björn Töpel <bjorn.topel@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On Wed, 22 May 2019 at 20:13, Y Song <ys114321@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 2:25 AM Björn Töpel <bjorn.topel@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>> >>>> Add three tests to test_verifier/basic_instr that make sure that the >>>> high 32-bits of the destination register is cleared after an ALU32 >>>> and/or/xor. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Björn Töpel <bjorn.topel@xxxxxxxxx> >>> >>> I think the patch intends for bpf-next, right? The patch itself looks >>> good to me. >>> Acked-by: Yonghong Song <yhs@xxxxxx> >> >> Thank you. Actually, it was intended for the bpf tree, as a test >> follow up for this [1] fix. > Then maybe you want to add a Fixes tag and resubmit? Why would the test case need a fixes tag? It's common practice that we have BPF fixes that we queue to bpf tree along with kselftest test cases related to them. Therefore, applied as well, thanks for following up! Björn, in my email from the fix, I mentioned we should have test snippets ideally for all of the alu32 insns to not miss something falling through the cracks when JITs get added or changed. If you have some cycles to add the remaining missing ones, that would be much appreciated. Thanks, Daniel
